All over the north the temperature went down to extreme cold, so now what about global warming?
Extreme snowfall to …
[quote=“belgian pie”]All over the north the temperature went down to extreme cold, so now what about global warming?
Extreme snowfall to …[/quote]
Really, you have already snow up north in Sanxia?
Six former heads of the US Environmental Protection Agency (five of them republicans) seem to disagree.
[quote]Six former administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, including five Republicans, said yesterday that the Bush administration should impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions to curb global warming.
The group, which came together in Washington for a roundtable discussion to celebrate the agency’s 35th anniversary, said the White House is not moving fast enough to address the global threat that human-generated climate change poses.
“This is not a sort of short-term cycle problem. This is a major disaster for the world,” said Russell E. Train, who served as EPA administrator under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford from 1973 to 1977. “To say we’ll deal with it later and try to push it away is dishonest to the people, and self-destructive.”
Lee M. Thomas, who headed the agency from 1985 to 1989 under Ronald Reagan, said U.S. businesses would welcome federal regulation at this point because it would allow them to plan for the kind of investments that will be needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions linked to climate change.
Companies want “certainty as to what is required down the road,” Thomas said. “You’ve got to put an international scheme in place that says ‘We’re going to start action today’ and periodically we’re going to review these things and see if we need to tighten things or loosen them. You can’t wait until you have certainty on these issues. Then it’s way too late.”
The only living former administrators who did not join in the panel were Mike Leavitt, who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services and could not attend because of a scheduling conflict, and Douglas M. Costle, who served under President Jimmy Carter. Costle could not attend for health reasons.
Carol M. Browner, the lone Democrat present, told reporters after the session that the panel’s consensus on the need for regulation is “huge,” calling it "a testament to the reality of the issue and a recognition that it’s time to do something."[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02072.html
[quote]Jeffrey Immelt is pushing windmills, water filters, nuclear power and cleaner turbines and jet engines. Has General Electric gone eco-mad?
The ads are fetching and funny: an elephant dancing in the jungle to “Singin’ in the Rain,” with the tagline, “technology that’s right in step with nature.” Or the hard-hat-wearing, improbably gorgeous models sweating it out in a coal mine to the sound of Merle Travis’ “Sixteen Tons.” Message? “Harnessing the power of coal is looking more beautiful every day.” It’s part of what General Electric calls “Ecomagination,” a multimillion-dollar image campaign that all but paints this century-old manufacturing company as an affiliate of Greenpeace.[/quote]
GE goes green. 
Warmest winter in Kaohsiung since I got here three years ago. Again today I’m riding my bike wearing only a T-shirt. 
It sure doesn’t feel like January. Got to hate the North unless you live in Australia. 
bobepine
What about extreme cold and snowfall up North this year? It seems to be counterintuitive, but makes sense if you understand that the earth’s weather systems and ocean currents are basically heat distribution mechanisms. Experts agree that, for reasons still unkown, that the total energy of the earth’s climate system is increasing, and one of the the observable results is more active and violent weather systems. So, the greater total energy in the system, the more violent the “mixing” of cold and warm air masses, resulting in more violent and unpredictable weather.
To my knowledge, there is no “Global warming theory”. To have a theory, you need to have a mechanism, but the reasons the climate is warming are still unknown.
Strangely enough, that is good news for wind power.
Last summer my wife and I took a trip to Norfolk and saw the huge offshore windfarm at Great Yarmouth. Later that summer I was talking to a friend of mine who works at NRG, a place in Vermont that sells wind turbines, and asked him why you never see large turbines in cities. It made sense to me that urban areas and brownfields would surely be better places for windfarms, because these areas were already built up and were close to where the power would be consumed. He told me that wind turbines are not very tolerant of turbulent flow conditions, that the blades and main bearings of the turbines would be subject to wind shear stresses that would seriously shorten their service life. That’s the reason that they are so controversial; because they have to be placed offshore or in open countryside and only in those open areas where the wind conditions are right.
It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! 
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.
Bollocks. This kind of cycle has been present for millions and millions of years.
Trees contribute to global warming. Big lakes. The sediment under the sea. Volacanoes, even cows.
Our contribution to global warming is just a fraction of what is caused by nature.
The thing I’ve always wondered about is, haven’t we been experiencing global warming since the last ice age?
Bollocks. This kind of cycle has been present for millions and millions of years.
Trees contribute to global warming. Big lakes. The sediment under the sea. Volacanoes, even cows.
Our contribution to global warming is just a fraction of what is caused by nature.[/quote]
D.M. I agree with you. When people talk about global warming though they are talking about how it affects ‘humans’ not what it is doing to the planet. The earth was a solid ball of ice for a long time. Was that a problem? Only if there had been people around to moan about it and measure it!
Science is just the pursuit of funding, and really what we know we don’t know far outweighs what we think we do know. And what we could know, well, who knows! Know what I mean?
I recall that in Japan one merely had to break into a sweat and there followed a conversation about global warming etc.
Although the man is somewhat of a cretin, I did enjoy Bill Bryson’s ‘A short history of nearly everything (from a western point of view)’ cos it shows how much we stumble about with science, often overlooking the truth.
[quote=“Notsu”]It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.[/quote]
True. And the continuation of “global warming” will first result in ever more unpredicatable and violent weather systems and finally the next ice age (which will hit the Northern Hemisphere the hardest).
And it’s also all part of the natural flow of the Earth’s cycle. However, the growing emissions of greenhouse gases in the last century is probably aiding in the acceleration of this natural process.
[quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”]It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.[/quote]
True. And the continuation of “global warming” will first result in ever more unpredicatable and violent weather systems and finally the next ice age (which will hit the Northern Hemisphere the hardest).
And it’s also all part of the natural flow of the Earth’s cycle. However, the growing emissions of greenhouse gases in the last century is probably aiding in the acceleration of this natural process.[/quote]
Natural Earth’s cycle my arse. Easy for you to talk about natural when it’s over 50 degrees warmer where you’re at! 
[quote=“Notsu”][quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”]It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.[/quote]
True. And the continuation of “global warming” will first result in ever more unpredicatable and violent weather systems and finally the next ice age (which will hit the Northern Hemisphere the hardest).
And it’s also all part of the natural flow of the Earth’s cycle. However, the growing emissions of greenhouse gases in the last century is probably aiding in the acceleration of this natural process.[/quote]
Natural Earth’s cycle my arse. Easy for you to talk about natural when it’s over 50 degrees warmer where you’re at! [/quote]
hehehe… Celsius or Fahrenheit?
[quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”][quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”]It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.[/quote]
True. And the continuation of “global warming” will first result in ever more unpredicatable and violent weather systems and finally the next ice age (which will hit the Northern Hemisphere the hardest).
And it’s also all part of the natural flow of the Earth’s cycle. However, the growing emissions of greenhouse gases in the last century is probably aiding in the acceleration of this natural process.[/quote]
Natural Earth’s cycle my arse. Easy for you to talk about natural when it’s over 50 degrees warmer where you’re at! [/quote]
hehehe… Celsius or Fahrenheit? [/quote]
Celsius. -28C here, according to Tealit about 25C in Tainan.
[quote=“Notsu”][quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”][quote=“bismarck”][quote=“Notsu”]It sure is cold in Estonia - they say it will be -35C at the weekend! I don’t think I’ve ever seen such cold.
But they also say that global warming will actually make the climate in Europe colder, because the nice and warm Gulf Stream will move away from us. So global warming doesn’t mean it will get warmer everywhere. Unfortunately.[/quote]
True. And the continuation of “global warming” will first result in ever more unpredicatable and violent weather systems and finally the next ice age (which will hit the Northern Hemisphere the hardest).
And it’s also all part of the natural flow of the Earth’s cycle. However, the growing emissions of greenhouse gases in the last century is probably aiding in the acceleration of this natural process.[/quote]
Natural Earth’s cycle my arse. Easy for you to talk about natural when it’s over 50 degrees warmer where you’re at! [/quote]
hehehe… Celsius or Fahrenheit? [/quote]
Celsius. -28C here, according to Tealit about 25C in Tainan.[/quote]
Wow!!! That sure is cold. Bundle up and keep warm.
What are you doing in Estonia? I have a friend from there (She’s doing an IMBA at Cheng Gung Uni in Tainan) and she’s currently there on vacation. A mate of mine (from warm and sunny South Africa) is dating her and will be joining her there next weekend. Poor lad’s in for a horrible surprise weather wise…
I live here.
I hope it will be just as cold next weekend - otherwise your friends might not have enough to talk about when they go back home. 
[quote=“Notsu”]I live here.
I hope it will be just as cold next weekend - otherwise your friends might not have enough to talk about when they go back home. [/quote]
There’ll always be the young boy’s bare bottom.
Bollocks. This kind of cycle has been present for millions and millions of years.
Trees contribute to global warming. Big lakes. The sediment under the sea. Volacanoes, even cows.
Our contribution to global warming is just a fraction of what is caused by nature.[/quote]
D.M. I agree with you. When people talk about global warming though they are talking about how it affects ‘humans’ not what it is doing to the planet. The earth was a solid ball of ice for a long time. Was that a problem? Only if there had been people around to moan about it and measure it!
Science is just the pursuit of funding, and really what we know we don’t know far outweighs what we think we do know. And what we could know, well, who knows! Know what I mean?
I recall that in Japan one merely had to break into a sweat and there followed a conversation about global warming etc.
Although the man is somewhat of a cretin, I did enjoy Bill Bryson’s ‘A short history of nearly everything (from a western point of view)’ cos it shows how much we stumble about with science, often overlooking the truth.[/quote]
Bollocks on you both. Aside from those lunatics at Greenpeace et al, when someone who actually knows what they’re talking about talks about global warming, what they are usually refering to the anthropogenic disturbances to the incredibly complex system that governs the planet’s climate, of which the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and a whole other bunch of ~spheres are part of. It’s all a balance, so saying A is good for global warming and B is bad is like saying water is bad for you, it can kill you. We do not know how the entire system or how all the subcomponents fit together and work. Write off anyone who claims they do.
What we do know is how some of them work, or good understandings of the efffects they have on other components. Take the Carbon cycle (where it is, how it gets there, how long it takes, etc) which of course includes CO2, seashells on the seashore, and Sadam’s oil, for example. We have very accurate records of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 for the past ~2-300 000 years from antarctic ice cores, showing that the maximum concentrations ever see are on the order of ~280 ppm, and recent prehistoric levels were ~250 ppm. As of a few years ago, the level was at ~350 and increasing exponentially. The increase can be proven to be anthropogenic as over the history of man all other sources (such as biological) have remained near constant.
So what does that mean? Well, it means that as of right now we humans have thrown enough CO2 up into the air to far exceed anything the Earth has ever seen for a very long time, so we can’t look back to see what happened, which means we have no idea what kind of impacts it will have. Most theories point to very severe climate changes. Regardless, do you really think it’s a wise idea to let children whack away at the control panel and just wait to see what happens to the machine? This is why people in the field are worried. Knowing what will happen means you can try to work to fix it. Not knowing means you can’t do anything but cross your fingers.